Saturday, March 25, 2023

Human Genetic in Medicine: The Era of Pharmacogenomics

 

Human Genetics in Medicine

Pharmacogenomics

No patient reacts in precisely the same way when dosed with the same drug. Some will display dramatic differences when treated with the same drug for the same condition. If we could predict which patients were going to react badly from a study of their genetic make-up then modifications could be made to the drugs, or alternatives prescribed before the adverse events.
In a new field called pharmacogenomics of many different genes drug behavior may be predicted. We do this by being able to define individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) that predict a variable response to the particular drug. The hope for the future is that we will be able to provide treatment that is personalized. We must not lose sight, however, of the possibility that this personal genetic information will be misused, and considerations of safeguards should be at the forefront of plans to utilize this approach wisely. 

The best-known examples of the potential of pharmacogenomics approach are related to single gene traits that affect drug metabolism. It is not only variations in drug metabolism that are observed; there is a growing collection of polymorphisms within the genes that encodes proteins involved in transporting and targeting drugs. Most of those that have been found are the ones that are easy to identify because they are associated with single genes and clearly recognizable effects. This is not how many drugs work, however as multiple genes may be involved in determining the outcome of the treatment. This has led to genome-wide approaches to identify genes that determine variant drug response.

For example, between family response to the antihypertensive drug debrisoquine were used to identify the CRY2D6 gene in the action of the drug and polymorphisms identified that were responsible for this variation. The gene has been shown to be important in the metabolism of around 20 % of described drugs, including sparteine and propafenone, both anti-arrhythmic drug, amitriptyline, an antidepressant, and codeine, an analgesic, and this knowledge could be utilized to benefit individuals.

Even where single genes variant appears to have a strong effect on drug action, much of the variation in patient response remains unexplained by the polymorphism alone the reason remains unexplained by the polymorphism alone. The response for this at]re that there may be many other polymorphisms within genes that are important in cellular pathways that are involved in the interaction between the drug and its subsequent effect. It may not only affect the genes itself, but there may be polymorphisms within, for example, the promoter and enhancer regions that affect the expression of the genes.

Future studies are likely to identify polymorphism that interact with each other in different ways. For example, cytochrome P450 enzymes, including CYP3A5 are important to the metabolism of many drugs and are a high expression of the latter enzyme, leading up to more rapid drug metabolism, which is seen more often in the black population. However, many of these same drugs are also metabolized faster if an individual possesses a particular p-glycoprotein polymorphism. These are more common among Caucasian individuals. Thus, customized treatment will have to consider all the polymorphisms that alter a drug metabolism.

The identification of drugs that may have different efficacies in different racial groups may lead to questions of discrimination if some drugs are developed that benefit particular groups, even if no benefit is ensured. Any approach is complicated by:

1.       False negative – where there are no differences between the tissue used in research and the tissue of action in the body.

2.       False positive – simply because of the large number of areas that are being looked at, as areas will be identified by chance alone.

Identified regions in the genome will need to be confirmed through epidemiological association and biochemical functional studies, as well as in clinical models. The future hope for pharmacogenomics is the development of:

New drugs.

Genes identified with differing expression in cancer cells that are sensitive or resistant to anti-cancer drugs are candidates for the development of inhibitors of the gene product, reversing the drug-resistant phenotype.

Development of drugs, or drug combinations. Targeted to particular tissues to maximize therapeutic benefits and decrease damage in healthy cells.

Safer and better drugs.

Instead of the current ‘trial and error’ approach, where a patient is treated and switched to another therapy if the first one does not work or has too many side effects, knowledge of the patient’s genetic profile may allow the more appropriate treatment to be given from the start.

Appropriate drug dose.

Genetic response may be a better way to determine dose than a person’s body mass in future.

Susceptibility to disease

Most diseases are influenced by environmental factors and knowledge of risk may allow individuals to make important lifestyle changes and influence the timing of future drug therapies.

Genetic variants associated with increased risk of many common diseases are being identified.

Better drug discovery.

Many potential useful drugs have been abandoned because of the toxic side effects in some people. If this can be shown to be linked to polymorphic variations then individuals can be selected to receive, or not receive the particular therapy.

For example, abacavir, an anti-HIV drug produces extreme hypersensitivity reactions in a minority of patients. This has been linked to possession of the HLA-B*5701 genotype and the prospective screening of the individuals has led to a significant reduction in side effects of abacavir.

Lower healthcare cost

The cost associated with getting a drug to market will be reduced if there is more information that allows the prediction of the likely response though knowledge of the genetic pathways involved.

Antibiotics and pharmacogenomics

The increasing resistance of bacterial pathogens to the current antibiotics has led to the need for new ways to identify potential antimicrobial compounds. Traditional methods of identifying such compounds have involved whole-cell screening assays, with selections based on antimicrobial activities. More recently biochemical assays have been used to screen compounds for their ability to target enzymes or specific cellular pathways. Neither approach, however, has resulted in many new antibiotics being developed.

A more rational approach in the identification of potential antibiotic targets has come from genomic sequencing. The genomes of more than 100 bacteria have been sequenced and this allows the identification of proteins that are conserved across pathogens. This approach produces better information across pathogens. The approach produces better information about the likely spectrum of activity of an antimicrobial agent against a particular protein and is an unbiased approach. Comparison with the human genome also allows the identification of homologues that could present toxicity problems. Using currently available data, around 300 potential drugs targets have been identified.

Evidence-based treatment.

We are some way off using pharmacogenomic approaches for making treatment decisions. Despite there being clear candidates for their use. Current approaches in drug therapy use a trial-and-error approach, starting with a standard dose that will be modified by the results of biochemical tests or reporting of side effects. Changes in clinical practice will not come without proper randomized controlled studies that demonstrate a benefit in outcome. This will require a significant investment and there may be commercial pharmaceutical pressures that do not necessarily see the advantage of the approach. Despite the cost of essential clinical trials, others will point to the huge cost of providing an individual genetic profile, although this will be offset by the reduced ongoing need to monitor deleterious effects through biochemical tests, and cost is already being driven down through the introduction of SNP genotyping arrays.

 

No comments:

An Earthy Animal Kingdom vs A Spiritual Kingdom

  My nephew Vincent Lee Chin Chai wrote: “Thank you, Uncle JB for the writeup (my blog articles). An interesting read on scientific and di...